The employer asserted the "positive work order" defense, which required proof that there was a specific policy in place, the claimant knew about the employer's policy, and that the claimant's conduct at the time of injury removed the claimant from the course of employment.

Both cases in this appeal were based on policy language that excluded UM coverage for pedestrians struck by a hit-and-run vehicle because a pedestrian, by definition, cannot occupy a covered vehicle.

New Jersey also announced an increase in both the maximum and the minimum weekly benefits available to workers' comp claimants.

The Supreme Court of Arizona recently answered two questions certified by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona that both concerned how an insurer may or may not use depreciation in calculating the actual cash value (ACV) of damaged property.

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the worker's accident would have happened even if he hadn't been drinking before clocking in.

Huntington Ingalls, according to the Supreme Court of Vermont, suffered "direct physical damage" because employees infected with COVID had been physically present at the facilities and unintentionally spread the virus to employees who were not ill.

It is not uncommon to see workers' comp cases hinge on whether the injuries both arose out of and in the course of their employment.

According to the court, a qualifying compensable injury had to arise from more than an employee's mere presence at the workplace.